9.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Bratislava.
10.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
11.  On 17 June 1982 the applicant was served a notice of dismissal from job under Article 46 § 1 (f) of the Labour Code for an especially serious breach of work discipline in that he had been absent from his work for several days without an excuse.
12.  On 18 June 1984 the Bratislava III District Court (then Obvodný súd, at present Okresný súd) rejected the applicant’s request for a judicial ruling declaring the dismissal null and void.
13.  On 19 November 1985 a three‑judge Chamber of the Bratislava City Court (then Mestský súd, at present Krajský súd) dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment of 18 June 1984. The Chamber deciding on the appeal included judge S.
14.  On 12 February 1993 the applicant and his wife took civil proceedings against the legal successor of his former employer before the Bratislava I District Court. They sought the applicant’s rehabilitation under the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act (Law no. 87/1991 Coll. - Zákon o mimosúdnych rehabilitáciách) in respect of his dismissal in 1982.
15.  In a judgment of 27 September 1994, following a hearing held on the same day, the Bratislava I District Court considered that the action aimed at obtaining a judicial order to the defendant to issue a formal confirmation that the applicant had been dismissed in 1982 for politically motivated reasons and in violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms within the meaning of section 21 (1) of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act. The court rejected the action as being unsubstantiated.
16.  On 6 December 1994 the applicant and his wife appealed to the Bratislava City Court and, on 10 January 1995, they supplemented the appeal (odvolanie). They argued that the District Court had misinterpreted the action in that it had not been aimed at obtaining a judicial order against the defendant, but at obtaining a declaratory judgment to the effect that the applicant’s dismissal had been based on the grounds referred to in section 21 (1) of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act. They further complained that the District Court had overlooked the fact that the action had also been brought by the applicant’s wife.
17.  On 28 February 1995 the Bratislava City Court quashed the District Court’s judgment of 27 September 1994 and remitted the case to the District Court, holding that the latter had failed to determine the action insofar as it had been brought by the applicant’s wife.
18.  On 31 October 1995, following a hearing held on the same day, the District Court again dismissed the action after examining testimonies of the parties, the applicant’s personal file with his former employer and the case‑file concerning the applicant’s proceedings in the 1980s. The District Court found it established that the applicant had been dismissed from his work in 1982 for unauthorised absence for several days, i.e. an especially serious breach of work discipline which had had no political subtext. In so far as the applicant relied on section 21 § 1 (c) of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act, he had failed to prove that his dismissal had been for reasons of political persecution or in violation of generally recognised human rights and freedoms. The District Court finally found that the applicant’s wife had no cause of action in the case, in that the dismissal did not directly concern her.
19.  On 25 January 1996 the applicant and his wife filed an appeal with the City Court and on 2 February 1996 they submitted further particulars of the appeal. They argued that the District Court had misinterpreted the action, incorrectly interpreted and assessed the facts and arbitrarily dismissed the action.
20.  On 11 April 1996, following a hearing of the appeal held on the same day, the City Court upheld the District Court’s judgment of 31 October 1995 and granted leave for an appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court. It held that the District Court had adequately established the facts of the case and concurred with its factual and legal conclusions.
21.  On 6 August 1996, through his lawyer, the applicant filed an appeal on points of law (dovolanie) with the Supreme Court. He argued that the lower courts had erred in their determination of the facts and law in his case.
22.  In reply to the appeal on points of law, the defendant filed observations which however the courts did not transmit to the applicant.
23.  On 28 November 1996 a three-judge Chamber of the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law after deliberating in camera. As to the defendant’s observations in reply to the appeal on points of law, the Supreme Court noted that the defendant had invited the Supreme Court to reject that appeal as unfounded since the lower courts’ decisions had been correct and the appeal had produced no new relevant information. The Supreme Court found that the District Court and the City Court had adequately established the relevant facts and fully endorsed their factual and legal conclusions. The Supreme Court further discerned no procedural or other flaws within the meaning of Articles 237 and 241 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court Chamber included judge S. who had been a member of the three‑judge Chamber of the City Court that, on 19 November 1985, had rejected the applicant’s appeal in the proceedings on his dismissal in 1982. No appeal lay against the Supreme Court’s judgment.